Hal Finney, Thanks for the thought. I know that there is something instead of nothing by using Descartes reasoning. (From http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm) "The only thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere (viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am)."
I don't understand how there can be both something and nothing. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "nothing." By "nothing" I mean no thing, not even empty space. In other words, it is conceivable to me that the multiverse need not exist. Yet it does. Why? This seems inherently unanswerable. Norman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:12 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? > How do you know the premise is true, that there is something instead > of nothing? Maybe there could be both something and nothing. Or maybe > the existence of "nothing" is consistent with our own experiences. > > I don't think all these terms are well enough defined for the question > to have meaning in its simple form. It's easy to put words together, > but not all gramatically correct sentences are meaningful. > > Hal Finney > >
